Letters to the Editor

Teacher-Attrition Studies: Old Headlines, New Again

To the Editor:

I respectfully suggest that your headline "High Teacher Attrition
Grabs Attention in North Carolina"(June 19, 1996) was
incomplete. Insertion of "Again" or "Still" after "Attrition" would
meet my need for accurate reporting. The National Longitudinal Study
conducted in 1972 included North Carolina and the prognosis then was
that the good teachers are leaving teaching after a few short
years.

Because teacher attrition was a large component of my own research,
completed at Fordham University in New York City last year, I am
sensitive to the topic. The data reported as current is a replication
of findings dating back to 1982. Almost 10 years ago, the study
"Teacher Attrition: The Uphill Climb To Staff the Nation's Schools"
(Grissmer & Kirbey, 1987) concluded that data on teacher attrition
have the most uncertain historical estimates. Data on teacher attrition
are not collected at the national level. The National Center for
Education Statistics projections use a mid-range, 6 percent
teacher-attrition factor in their projection of teacher demand, and
this dates back to data collected in 1969. States have the data to
estimate attrition, but they tend to project constant attrition rates
based on previous years' rates, failing to recognize the dynamic nature
of teacher attrition and the underlying factors that cause it.

As a teacher and a leader in education, I am continually dismayed at
the abundance of information and the absence of application or transfer
of knowledge. Dan Lortie's seminal work School Teacher: A
Sociological Study concluded that teachers struggle with problems
and anxieties privately, never developing a professional support
system. Twenty years later, we still make this headline news. I guess
it is always easier to restate the problem than to work for
solutions.

Technology-Updating Insights Ring True to This 'Zealot'

To the Editor:

I would like to add my assent to the Commentary entitled "Upgrading
School Technology," by Lin Foa, Richard L. Schwab, and Michael Johnson
(May 1, 1996). Having worked to integrate computers into public school
curriculum and instruction for the past 10 years, I was impressed by
the number of their observations that, unlike those contained in many
other articles on this subject, sounded like reality. Simply put, I
believe they got it right.

I'll cite just a few of their insights. First, their suggestion to
"identify and support the zealots" has been verified in my own
experience. In fact, it seems that if a district has such champions, it
advances technologically; without them, it is much harder to
progress.

The writers' finding that "training is at least as important as
technology" may seem mundane--in the best-selling business writer Tom
Peters' words, a blinding flash of the obvious--but, I've found, it is
a maxim often overlooked in practice. Teachers without training often
ultimately resort to asking "What is it we're to do with these
computers?"

Finally, the guideline to "move forward with those who are ready:
don't waste time, dollars, or energy on those who are not yet
interested" echoes advice offered nearly a decade ago by Joe
Hoffmeister, technology guru at Cincinnati Country Day School
("HyperSchool"), who said, "Spend time among the living." The advances
of his schools--and others, like those in Canfield, Ohio, that heeded
this suggestion--indicate he was on to something.

America's Racial Problems Were Never Just Black-White

To the Editor:

It is unfortunate that Leonard B. Stevens' timely call for a more
complex understanding of race in America ("The Place of Race in
America,"Commentary, June 19, 1996) rests upon the misleading
idea that race here is "no longer just a black-white issue."

The problem with this argument is not that race concerns now extend
beyond blacks to include Asians and Latinos, but that--perceptions
aside--race in America has never been just a black-white issue. From
the Europeans' first arrival it has always been, at least in part, a
red-white issue. Mr. Stevens' view is no exception, though it is the
norm among thinkers offering their "complex" visions of race in
America.

I suspect that this blindness persists precisely because an honest
examination of U.S-Indian relations raises the most difficult questions
of all about our national character. But until we do face the whole
history of race in America we will destine ourselves to inadequate
solutions to our most fundamental problems.

Mitchell V. Bogen
Somerville, Mass.

Ala. Principal's Rise Shows Need for Affirmative Action

To the Editor:

Your news item "Controversial Alabama Principal Headed for
Superintendency" (News Roundup, July 10, 1996) raises doubt
regarding the quality and integrity of the decisions this man will make
in his new position. The soon-to-be superintendent allegedly opposed
interracial dating at his school's prom and reportedly issued
directives to that effect. His impending elevation by local voters is
precisely the reason some continue to argue in support of affirmative
action policies in this country.

In today's social climate, where bigotry is not only tolerated but
fashionable, it is difficult to believe this principal possesses the
ability or inclination to make decisions that are "colorblind."
Opponents of affirmative action disingenuously suggest people should be
"judged by the content of their character, and not the color of their
skin."

The problem with this noble theory is that in real life the people
who make the judgments are too often persons with the apparent beliefs
of this Alabama educator and his considerable number of supporters.
Those who contest affirmative action should genuinely busy themselves
taking action to affirm the equality of all until justice becomes the
practice rather than the promise.

As long as America has public (and private-sector) officials who
appear to make decisions implying racial or gender superiority and are
then elected (or promoted) to higher positions, those who suggest
affirmative action is no longer needed are in denial, or worse.

Joseph W. Lee
Chicago, Ill.

Put College-Failure 'Blame' On Early Reading Methods

To the Editor:

Your article "Chain of Blame"(On Assignment, May 22, 1996),
which asked who is to blame for the poor preparation high schoolers get
for college, can easily be answered. The chain of blame does indeed
begin in the 1st grade, where the greatest damage is done to children
when faulty teaching methods are used. The introduction of look-say
methodology in the early 1930s, which eventually metamorphosed into the
whole-language approach of the 1980s and '90s, is the chief culprit in
the decline of reading skills and the subsequent decline in academic
achievement as a whole. Obviously, if you can't read, you can't do much
of anything else of an academic nature.

By now we also know that look-say, whole language, or whatever else
you want to call it can cause severe cognitive dysfunction among some
children. Samuel T. Orton, the famous expert on dyslexia, recognized
this as far back as 1929 in an article entitled "The 'Sight Reading'
Method of Teaching Reading as a Source of Reading Disability,"
published in the Journal of Educational Psychology.

Why does the sight method produce cognitive dysfunction? Because
when you impose a sight, or ideographic, teaching method on an
alphabetic, or phonetic, writing system, you get symbolic confusion
which, if not remediated with intensive phonics early enough, can
result in permanent cognitive dysfunction. An example of this sad
condition was revealed in the statement of a college student who, when
asked by her teacher to think of a topic sentence from her own
experience for an essay, replied: "I can't; my head will explode."

Why are so many young Americans who want to go to college
academically crippled? The answer is to be found in America's
kindergartens and 1st-grade classrooms, which have become the
incubators of reading disabilities, dyslexia, attention-deficit
disorder, and other dysfunctions that now plague millions of young
Americans. The unwillingness of the education establishment to
recognize this and make the necessary changes in teaching methods and
classroom configuration means that we shall continue to be plagued by
cognitive dysfunction for many years to come.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.